Shadow inventory finally being released ?

[UCGal]

[quote=bearishgurl]
I want to appeal all native San Diegan and lifetime San Diegan Piggs to think back to your “home turf” as you remember it. Bear in mind that relatively low cost cosmetic and heavy “fixers” still exist there today, whether currently listed or not. Think back to the house you grew up in. Do your parent(s) still reside there?

Now ask yourself, would I raise my family in this home? Even if I inherited the home free and clear, would I raise my family in it? Would I move back to my home turf and raise my family in my deceased parent(s)’ home or buy a fixer there on the cheap near my relatives so my family could live on one income? What if it was situated on a 9K sf lot??
[/quote]

LOL – I’ll take the bite.
I’m a native San Diegan fast approaching age 50. From 1961-65 lived in Clairemont, near Balboa and Genesee. House was a 3 br/2ba about 1200 sf. We moved because it was crowded for a family of 4. No family room… just living room. 5000sf lot – so not a huge lot. In other words – even back then 1200 for a family with 3 kids was crowded.

My parents then bought a REO in UC. 2016 sf. Great house to grow up in – but it was the BOONIES. Back then UTC didn’t exist. 52 didn’t exist. 805 didn’t exist. Even Genesee didn’t connect UC to Clairemont… The only way in and out was on Regents Rd to Clairemont Mesa Blvd. (and then cut over on Moraga to Balboa to get to the 5 freeway.)

I bought the house from my dad. (not inherited – paid market value… a 2000% profit for the 35 years my parents owned it). So I’m living in the exact same model/size/lot/location that my parents chose to raise their kids. And my particular street has several 2nd gen families. 3 others that I know for sure – there may be more… I suspect as the parents age – there will be more in the future. It’s a good neighborhood and the houses are fine.

One of the differences… My parents bought with just one income. And they bought when they were in their mid 30’s. They had to carry two mortgages because it was a down market and they kept the Clairemont house as a rental till the market improved. We needed just over 1 income (refi in 2009 brought our budget to where we live on one income – bank/fund my dreams of early retirement with the other.) My mom went to work when I was entering jr. high… and her income paid for our college.

Another difference: we were older when we bought – and had nice equity from previous homes – so we paid off a huge portion right from the get go. Having savings/equity from previous homes made it affordable.

Not sure we could have swung (at least within our comfort zone) if we didn’t have that large down… We wouldn’t have had that large down at the age my parents bought the house.

So… comparing apples to apples. My parents were able to afford the same house at a younger age on just one income. My dad was an engineer, so am I.

[UCGal]

[quote=Scarlett]I am taking now a few months long hiatus in house hunting. But still I am watching, UC included, and I was actually recently telling my DH that there seem to be more deals in the low 500s and 1500 sf in UC nowadays. It almost seems that prices are coming down a tad bit there (or it’s more inventory). (to clarify, at my current workplace, from UC I will take 52, the fastest route – I am not against it at all; my DH would take surface streets).

NOTE: definitely NEED 2 baths for 4 people. If 2 story, got to be 2.5. We won’t compromise on this one.[/quote]

I’ve definitely notice more houses in the 500’s in UC of late. Maybe reality is entering the market.

In theory I should object to my hood dropping in price- since it effects my “wealth” on paper… but since my goal is to get my house paid off and live in it forever… I would rather see sanity than bubbles in the market.

[UCGal]

[quote=Scarlett]I am taking now a few months long hiatus in house hunting. But still I am watching, UC included, and I was actually recently telling my DH that there seem to be more deals in the low 500s and 1500 sf in UC nowadays. It almost seems that prices are coming down a tad bit there (or it’s more inventory). (to clarify, at my current workplace, from UC I will take 52, the fastest route – I am not against it at all; my DH would take surface streets).

NOTE: definitely NEED 2 baths for 4 people. If 2 story, got to be 2.5. We won’t compromise on this one.[/quote]

I’ve definitely notice more houses in the 500’s in UC of late. Maybe reality is entering the market.

In theory I should object to my hood dropping in price- since it effects my “wealth” on paper… but since my goal is to get my house paid off and live in it forever… I would rather see sanity than bubbles in the market.

[UCGal]

[quote=Scarlett]I am taking now a few months long hiatus in house hunting. But still I am watching, UC included, and I was actually recently telling my DH that there seem to be more deals in the low 500s and 1500 sf in UC nowadays. It almost seems that prices are coming down a tad bit there (or it’s more inventory). (to clarify, at my current workplace, from UC I will take 52, the fastest route – I am not against it at all; my DH would take surface streets).

NOTE: definitely NEED 2 baths for 4 people. If 2 story, got to be 2.5. We won’t compromise on this one.[/quote]

I’ve definitely notice more houses in the 500’s in UC of late. Maybe reality is entering the market.

In theory I should object to my hood dropping in price- since it effects my “wealth” on paper… but since my goal is to get my house paid off and live in it forever… I would rather see sanity than bubbles in the market.

[UCGal]

[quote=Scarlett]I am taking now a few months long hiatus in house hunting. But still I am watching, UC included, and I was actually recently telling my DH that there seem to be more deals in the low 500s and 1500 sf in UC nowadays. It almost seems that prices are coming down a tad bit there (or it’s more inventory). (to clarify, at my current workplace, from UC I will take 52, the fastest route – I am not against it at all; my DH would take surface streets).

NOTE: definitely NEED 2 baths for 4 people. If 2 story, got to be 2.5. We won’t compromise on this one.[/quote]

I’ve definitely notice more houses in the 500’s in UC of late. Maybe reality is entering the market.

In theory I should object to my hood dropping in price- since it effects my “wealth” on paper… but since my goal is to get my house paid off and live in it forever… I would rather see sanity than bubbles in the market.

[UCGal]

[quote=Scarlett]I am taking now a few months long hiatus in house hunting. But still I am watching, UC included, and I was actually recently telling my DH that there seem to be more deals in the low 500s and 1500 sf in UC nowadays. It almost seems that prices are coming down a tad bit there (or it’s more inventory). (to clarify, at my current workplace, from UC I will take 52, the fastest route – I am not against it at all; my DH would take surface streets).

NOTE: definitely NEED 2 baths for 4 people. If 2 story, got to be 2.5. We won’t compromise on this one.[/quote]

I’ve definitely notice more houses in the 500’s in UC of late. Maybe reality is entering the market.

In theory I should object to my hood dropping in price- since it effects my “wealth” on paper… but since my goal is to get my house paid off and live in it forever… I would rather see sanity than bubbles in the market.

[davelj]

[quote=CA renter]When you add in the increased costs in healthcare, childcare, education, etc., people are much worse off today than they were decades ago.
[/quote]

I think that in general, most folks in the US are not “much worse off today than they were decades ago.” I think a LOT of folks are not measurably better off than they were decades ago… but that’s a very different statement.

I think that income inequality, however, has resulted in a lot of people *feeling* that they’re worse off because one’s feeling of well-being is to some extent tied to one’s position in life relative to others, and increasing income inequality exacerbates this issue.

I agree that health care costs are insane – that’s clearly one area in which the majority (that is, the generally healthy) are far worse off from a cost perspective than the minority (that is, the unhealthy, who are net beneficiaries in the system). Child care I have no idea about… but one chooses to have children. As far as I’m concerned, children are a luxury good and should be thought of as such – but you already know my position on this issue. Education – and I think we’re mainly talking about college here – is very expensive at the most competitive schools, but is pretty reasonable at the Community College and State schools. In-state tuition at SD State, for example, is $4,200/year (which is quite reasonable). And I firmly believe that you get out of a college education what you put into it – the real *learning* that takes place at UCSD ($22,000/year in-state tuition) probably isn’t materially different from that which takes place at SD State. The College Competitiveness which permeates many of today’s upwardly mobile parents is largely about… Keeping up with the Joneses… not about true educational attainment.

Having said all that, there’s a contrary view of your perception of our current relative standard of living (today versus the “Halcyon Days” – just to pick a term – of yore). Perhaps… the Halcyon Days (pick your decades) were the exception – and to be celebrated for their exceptionalism – and today is the “norm.” That is, instead of bemoaning how difficult things are today (in your perception) – which is the “norm” – perhaps we should just be happy that the Halcyon Days ever existed at all – that is, perhaps they were the exception, never meant to return again. That’s the glass-is-half-full view of things. It’s kind of like comparing stock returns over different periods. People bemoan the fact that the decades of 15%+ annualized returns aren’t returning… when instead they should be happy with 7% and just be glad that the 15%+ years ever existed at all… it’s all a matter of perspective. And, of course, we all suffer from reference bias, which is that our views of the present are biased by our views from some reference point in the past… which may have NOTHING to do with anything.

Anyhow, just my 2 cents.

[davelj]

[quote=CA renter]When you add in the increased costs in healthcare, childcare, education, etc., people are much worse off today than they were decades ago.
[/quote]

I think that in general, most folks in the US are not “much worse off today than they were decades ago.” I think a LOT of folks are not measurably better off than they were decades ago… but that’s a very different statement.

I think that income inequality, however, has resulted in a lot of people *feeling* that they’re worse off because one’s feeling of well-being is to some extent tied to one’s position in life relative to others, and increasing income inequality exacerbates this issue.

I agree that health care costs are insane – that’s clearly one area in which the majority (that is, the generally healthy) are far worse off from a cost perspective than the minority (that is, the unhealthy, who are net beneficiaries in the system). Child care I have no idea about… but one chooses to have children. As far as I’m concerned, children are a luxury good and should be thought of as such – but you already know my position on this issue. Education – and I think we’re mainly talking about college here – is very expensive at the most competitive schools, but is pretty reasonable at the Community College and State schools. In-state tuition at SD State, for example, is $4,200/year (which is quite reasonable). And I firmly believe that you get out of a college education what you put into it – the real *learning* that takes place at UCSD ($22,000/year in-state tuition) probably isn’t materially different from that which takes place at SD State. The College Competitiveness which permeates many of today’s upwardly mobile parents is largely about… Keeping up with the Joneses… not about true educational attainment.

Having said all that, there’s a contrary view of your perception of our current relative standard of living (today versus the “Halcyon Days” – just to pick a term – of yore). Perhaps… the Halcyon Days (pick your decades) were the exception – and to be celebrated for their exceptionalism – and today is the “norm.” That is, instead of bemoaning how difficult things are today (in your perception) – which is the “norm” – perhaps we should just be happy that the Halcyon Days ever existed at all – that is, perhaps they were the exception, never meant to return again. That’s the glass-is-half-full view of things. It’s kind of like comparing stock returns over different periods. People bemoan the fact that the decades of 15%+ annualized returns aren’t returning… when instead they should be happy with 7% and just be glad that the 15%+ years ever existed at all… it’s all a matter of perspective. And, of course, we all suffer from reference bias, which is that our views of the present are biased by our views from some reference point in the past… which may have NOTHING to do with anything.

Anyhow, just my 2 cents.

[davelj]

[quote=CA renter]When you add in the increased costs in healthcare, childcare, education, etc., people are much worse off today than they were decades ago.
[/quote]

I think that in general, most folks in the US are not “much worse off today than they were decades ago.” I think a LOT of folks are not measurably better off than they were decades ago… but that’s a very different statement.

I think that income inequality, however, has resulted in a lot of people *feeling* that they’re worse off because one’s feeling of well-being is to some extent tied to one’s position in life relative to others, and increasing income inequality exacerbates this issue.

I agree that health care costs are insane – that’s clearly one area in which the majority (that is, the generally healthy) are far worse off from a cost perspective than the minority (that is, the unhealthy, who are net beneficiaries in the system). Child care I have no idea about… but one chooses to have children. As far as I’m concerned, children are a luxury good and should be thought of as such – but you already know my position on this issue. Education – and I think we’re mainly talking about college here – is very expensive at the most competitive schools, but is pretty reasonable at the Community College and State schools. In-state tuition at SD State, for example, is $4,200/year (which is quite reasonable). And I firmly believe that you get out of a college education what you put into it – the real *learning* that takes place at UCSD ($22,000/year in-state tuition) probably isn’t materially different from that which takes place at SD State. The College Competitiveness which permeates many of today’s upwardly mobile parents is largely about… Keeping up with the Joneses… not about true educational attainment.

Having said all that, there’s a contrary view of your perception of our current relative standard of living (today versus the “Halcyon Days” – just to pick a term – of yore). Perhaps… the Halcyon Days (pick your decades) were the exception – and to be celebrated for their exceptionalism – and today is the “norm.” That is, instead of bemoaning how difficult things are today (in your perception) – which is the “norm” – perhaps we should just be happy that the Halcyon Days ever existed at all – that is, perhaps they were the exception, never meant to return again. That’s the glass-is-half-full view of things. It’s kind of like comparing stock returns over different periods. People bemoan the fact that the decades of 15%+ annualized returns aren’t returning… when instead they should be happy with 7% and just be glad that the 15%+ years ever existed at all… it’s all a matter of perspective. And, of course, we all suffer from reference bias, which is that our views of the present are biased by our views from some reference point in the past… which may have NOTHING to do with anything.

Anyhow, just my 2 cents.

[davelj]

[quote=CA renter]When you add in the increased costs in healthcare, childcare, education, etc., people are much worse off today than they were decades ago.
[/quote]

I think that in general, most folks in the US are not “much worse off today than they were decades ago.” I think a LOT of folks are not measurably better off than they were decades ago… but that’s a very different statement.

I think that income inequality, however, has resulted in a lot of people *feeling* that they’re worse off because one’s feeling of well-being is to some extent tied to one’s position in life relative to others, and increasing income inequality exacerbates this issue.

I agree that health care costs are insane – that’s clearly one area in which the majority (that is, the generally healthy) are far worse off from a cost perspective than the minority (that is, the unhealthy, who are net beneficiaries in the system). Child care I have no idea about… but one chooses to have children. As far as I’m concerned, children are a luxury good and should be thought of as such – but you already know my position on this issue. Education – and I think we’re mainly talking about college here – is very expensive at the most competitive schools, but is pretty reasonable at the Community College and State schools. In-state tuition at SD State, for example, is $4,200/year (which is quite reasonable). And I firmly believe that you get out of a college education what you put into it – the real *learning* that takes place at UCSD ($22,000/year in-state tuition) probably isn’t materially different from that which takes place at SD State. The College Competitiveness which permeates many of today’s upwardly mobile parents is largely about… Keeping up with the Joneses… not about true educational attainment.

Having said all that, there’s a contrary view of your perception of our current relative standard of living (today versus the “Halcyon Days” – just to pick a term – of yore). Perhaps… the Halcyon Days (pick your decades) were the exception – and to be celebrated for their exceptionalism – and today is the “norm.” That is, instead of bemoaning how difficult things are today (in your perception) – which is the “norm” – perhaps we should just be happy that the Halcyon Days ever existed at all – that is, perhaps they were the exception, never meant to return again. That’s the glass-is-half-full view of things. It’s kind of like comparing stock returns over different periods. People bemoan the fact that the decades of 15%+ annualized returns aren’t returning… when instead they should be happy with 7% and just be glad that the 15%+ years ever existed at all… it’s all a matter of perspective. And, of course, we all suffer from reference bias, which is that our views of the present are biased by our views from some reference point in the past… which may have NOTHING to do with anything.

Anyhow, just my 2 cents.

[davelj]

[quote=CA renter]When you add in the increased costs in healthcare, childcare, education, etc., people are much worse off today than they were decades ago.
[/quote]

I think that in general, most folks in the US are not “much worse off today than they were decades ago.” I think a LOT of folks are not measurably better off than they were decades ago… but that’s a very different statement.

I think that income inequality, however, has resulted in a lot of people *feeling* that they’re worse off because one’s feeling of well-being is to some extent tied to one’s position in life relative to others, and increasing income inequality exacerbates this issue.

I agree that health care costs are insane – that’s clearly one area in which the majority (that is, the generally healthy) are far worse off from a cost perspective than the minority (that is, the unhealthy, who are net beneficiaries in the system). Child care I have no idea about… but one chooses to have children. As far as I’m concerned, children are a luxury good and should be thought of as such – but you already know my position on this issue. Education – and I think we’re mainly talking about college here – is very expensive at the most competitive schools, but is pretty reasonable at the Community College and State schools. In-state tuition at SD State, for example, is $4,200/year (which is quite reasonable). And I firmly believe that you get out of a college education what you put into it – the real *learning* that takes place at UCSD ($22,000/year in-state tuition) probably isn’t materially different from that which takes place at SD State. The College Competitiveness which permeates many of today’s upwardly mobile parents is largely about… Keeping up with the Joneses… not about true educational attainment.

Having said all that, there’s a contrary view of your perception of our current relative standard of living (today versus the “Halcyon Days” – just to pick a term – of yore). Perhaps… the Halcyon Days (pick your decades) were the exception – and to be celebrated for their exceptionalism – and today is the “norm.” That is, instead of bemoaning how difficult things are today (in your perception) – which is the “norm” – perhaps we should just be happy that the Halcyon Days ever existed at all – that is, perhaps they were the exception, never meant to return again. That’s the glass-is-half-full view of things. It’s kind of like comparing stock returns over different periods. People bemoan the fact that the decades of 15%+ annualized returns aren’t returning… when instead they should be happy with 7% and just be glad that the 15%+ years ever existed at all… it’s all a matter of perspective. And, of course, we all suffer from reference bias, which is that our views of the present are biased by our views from some reference point in the past… which may have NOTHING to do with anything.

Anyhow, just my 2 cents.

[njtosd]

[quote=davelj]

I think that income inequality, however, has resulted in a lot of people *feeling* that they’re worse off because one’s feeling of well-being is to some extent tied to one’s position in life relative to others, and increasing income inequality exacerbates this issue.

I agree that health care costs are insane – that’s clearly one area in which the majority (that is, the generally healthy) are far worse off from a cost perspective than the minority (that is, the unhealthy, who are net beneficiaries in the system). [/quote]

I am in complete agreement about people feeling that they are worse off, and I think the images that people are bombarded with by TV programming and advertising have contributed to that. The set of the show “Roseanne” was much more typical of an American house that what is shown on “Friends” etc. The expectation that everyone needs a cell phone, the proliferation of three car garages (and all that fills them up), the decorating shows that seem to suggest that most people can’t possibly live without granite countertops . . It’s mind boggling.

With respect to health care – it’s hard to say. When I was young, diabetics received insulin purified from the carcasses of cows and pigs – resulting in lots of allergic reactions, etc. The insulin used now is synthetic human insulin, resulting in higher costs but a much higher quality of life. A single dose of the drug EPO used to be made by filtering a mixture of approximately 10,000 urine samples (taken from roughly that many people) and the work involved resulted in a very low supply. It is made synthetically now, it’s available in much greater supply and doesn’t have the potential for disease transmission. In the 70s, a pair of twins who lived down the street from me were frequently taken to the hospital by ambulance because of life threatening asthma attacks – you don’t hear about that anymore. And finally, according to my neighbor (a pediatric oncologist), the survival rate for pediatric cancer has gone way up, just in the last 10 years. All of these advances came at a cost – and I’m not sure what the right cost is – but health care is improving every day – and I don’t think anyone thinks the progress should stop.

[njtosd]

[quote=davelj]

I think that income inequality, however, has resulted in a lot of people *feeling* that they’re worse off because one’s feeling of well-being is to some extent tied to one’s position in life relative to others, and increasing income inequality exacerbates this issue.

I agree that health care costs are insane – that’s clearly one area in which the majority (that is, the generally healthy) are far worse off from a cost perspective than the minority (that is, the unhealthy, who are net beneficiaries in the system). [/quote]

I am in complete agreement about people feeling that they are worse off, and I think the images that people are bombarded with by TV programming and advertising have contributed to that. The set of the show “Roseanne” was much more typical of an American house that what is shown on “Friends” etc. The expectation that everyone needs a cell phone, the proliferation of three car garages (and all that fills them up), the decorating shows that seem to suggest that most people can’t possibly live without granite countertops . . It’s mind boggling.

With respect to health care – it’s hard to say. When I was young, diabetics received insulin purified from the carcasses of cows and pigs – resulting in lots of allergic reactions, etc. The insulin used now is synthetic human insulin, resulting in higher costs but a much higher quality of life. A single dose of the drug EPO used to be made by filtering a mixture of approximately 10,000 urine samples (taken from roughly that many people) and the work involved resulted in a very low supply. It is made synthetically now, it’s available in much greater supply and doesn’t have the potential for disease transmission. In the 70s, a pair of twins who lived down the street from me were frequently taken to the hospital by ambulance because of life threatening asthma attacks – you don’t hear about that anymore. And finally, according to my neighbor (a pediatric oncologist), the survival rate for pediatric cancer has gone way up, just in the last 10 years. All of these advances came at a cost – and I’m not sure what the right cost is – but health care is improving every day – and I don’t think anyone thinks the progress should stop.

[njtosd]

[quote=davelj]

I think that income inequality, however, has resulted in a lot of people *feeling* that they’re worse off because one’s feeling of well-being is to some extent tied to one’s position in life relative to others, and increasing income inequality exacerbates this issue.

I agree that health care costs are insane – that’s clearly one area in which the majority (that is, the generally healthy) are far worse off from a cost perspective than the minority (that is, the unhealthy, who are net beneficiaries in the system). [/quote]

I am in complete agreement about people feeling that they are worse off, and I think the images that people are bombarded with by TV programming and advertising have contributed to that. The set of the show “Roseanne” was much more typical of an American house that what is shown on “Friends” etc. The expectation that everyone needs a cell phone, the proliferation of three car garages (and all that fills them up), the decorating shows that seem to suggest that most people can’t possibly live without granite countertops . . It’s mind boggling.

With respect to health care – it’s hard to say. When I was young, diabetics received insulin purified from the carcasses of cows and pigs – resulting in lots of allergic reactions, etc. The insulin used now is synthetic human insulin, resulting in higher costs but a much higher quality of life. A single dose of the drug EPO used to be made by filtering a mixture of approximately 10,000 urine samples (taken from roughly that many people) and the work involved resulted in a very low supply. It is made synthetically now, it’s available in much greater supply and doesn’t have the potential for disease transmission. In the 70s, a pair of twins who lived down the street from me were frequently taken to the hospital by ambulance because of life threatening asthma attacks – you don’t hear about that anymore. And finally, according to my neighbor (a pediatric oncologist), the survival rate for pediatric cancer has gone way up, just in the last 10 years. All of these advances came at a cost – and I’m not sure what the right cost is – but health care is improving every day – and I don’t think anyone thinks the progress should stop.

[njtosd]

[quote=davelj]

I think that income inequality, however, has resulted in a lot of people *feeling* that they’re worse off because one’s feeling of well-being is to some extent tied to one’s position in life relative to others, and increasing income inequality exacerbates this issue.

I agree that health care costs are insane – that’s clearly one area in which the majority (that is, the generally healthy) are far worse off from a cost perspective than the minority (that is, the unhealthy, who are net beneficiaries in the system). [/quote]

I am in complete agreement about people feeling that they are worse off, and I think the images that people are bombarded with by TV programming and advertising have contributed to that. The set of the show “Roseanne” was much more typical of an American house that what is shown on “Friends” etc. The expectation that everyone needs a cell phone, the proliferation of three car garages (and all that fills them up), the decorating shows that seem to suggest that most people can’t possibly live without granite countertops . . It’s mind boggling.

With respect to health care – it’s hard to say. When I was young, diabetics received insulin purified from the carcasses of cows and pigs – resulting in lots of allergic reactions, etc. The insulin used now is synthetic human insulin, resulting in higher costs but a much higher quality of life. A single dose of the drug EPO used to be made by filtering a mixture of approximately 10,000 urine samples (taken from roughly that many people) and the work involved resulted in a very low supply. It is made synthetically now, it’s available in much greater supply and doesn’t have the potential for disease transmission. In the 70s, a pair of twins who lived down the street from me were frequently taken to the hospital by ambulance because of life threatening asthma attacks – you don’t hear about that anymore. And finally, according to my neighbor (a pediatric oncologist), the survival rate for pediatric cancer has gone way up, just in the last 10 years. All of these advances came at a cost – and I’m not sure what the right cost is – but health care is improving every day – and I don’t think anyone thinks the progress should stop.

[Author]

Posts